Hoi,
>From experience with Wikidata data I often find that data is wrong or of
questionable quality. Duh. Wikidata and Freebase are of a similar quality.
What we know is that there is some data Freebase has we are not interested
in.. For instance things that double the data by having it in two places.
We know that data can be easily improved by comparing it with other
sources. This process is available for Wikidata but not for the primary
sources tool as far as I am aware.
The problem with the primary sources tool is that it does not lead to
imports in Wikidata and therefore it is one big miserable failure. To
compound this issue, it is an article of faith that we "need" it and it is
therefore not a subject that is talked about. Importing it one statement at
a time is an absolute waste of time. It makes the user experience horrible.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 September 2015 at 01:02, Markus Krötzsch <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24.09.2015 23:48, James Heald wrote:
>
>> Has anybody actually done an assessment on Freebase and its reliability?
>>
>> Is it *really* too unreliable to import wholesale?
>>
>
> From experience with the Primary Sources tool proposals, the quality is
> mixed. Some things it proposes are really very valuable, but other things
> are also just wrong. I added a few very useful facts and fitting references
> based on the suggestions, but I also rejected others. Not sure what the
> success rate is for the cases I looked at, but my feeling is that some kind
> of "supervised import" approach is really needed when considering the total
> amount of facts.
>
> An issue is that it is often fairly hard to tell if a suggestion is true
> or not (mainly in cases where no references are suggested to check). In
> other cases, I am just not sure if a fact is correct for the property used.
> For example, I recently ended up accepting "architect: Charles Husband" for
> Lovell Telescope (Q555130), but to be honest I am not sure that this is
> correct: he was the leading engineer contracted to design the telescope,
> which seems different from an architect; no official web site uses the word
> "architect" it seems; I could not find a better property though, and it
> seemed "good enough" to accept it (as opposed to the post code of the
> location of this structure, which apparently was just wrong).
>
>
>> Are there any stats/progress graphs as to how the actual import is in
>> fact going?
>>
>
> It would indeed be interesting to see which percentage of proposals are
> being approved (and stay in Wikidata after a while), and whether there is a
> pattern (100% approval on some type of fact that could then be merged more
> quickly; or very low approval on something else that would maybe better
> revisited for mapping errors or other systematic problems).
>
> Markus
>
>
>
>
>> -- James.
>>
>>
>> On 24/09/2015 19:35, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Tom Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is to add MusicBrainz to the primary source tool, not anything
>>>>> else?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's apparently worse than that (which I hadn't realized until I
>>>> re-read the
>>>> transcript). It sounds like it's just going to generate little warning
>>>> icons for "bad" facts and not lead to the recording of any new facts
>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> 17:22:33 <Lydia_WMDE> we'll also work on getting the extension
>>>> deployed that
>>>> will help with checking against 3rd party databases
>>>> 17:23:33 <Lydia_WMDE> the result of constraint checks and checks
>>>> against 3rd
>>>> party databases will then be used to display little indicators next to a
>>>> statement in case it is problematic
>>>> 17:23:47 <Lydia_WMDE> i hope this way more people become aware of
>>>> issues and
>>>> can help fix them
>>>> 17:24:35 <sjoerddebruin> Do you have any names of databases that are
>>>> supported? :)
>>>> 17:24:59 <Lydia_WMDE> sjoerddebruin: in the first version the german
>>>> national library. it can be extended later
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know Freebase is deemed to be nasty and unreliable, but is MusicBrainz
>>>> considered trustworthy enough to import directly or will its facts
>>>> need to
>>>> be dripped through the primary source soda straw one at a time too?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The primary sources tool and the extension that helps us check against
>>> other databases are two independent things.
>>> Imports from Musicbrainz have been happening since a very long time
>>> already.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Lydia
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
